On 12-Mar-23 07:13, Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.
The following issue is the only one I found with this document that I think
SHOULD be corrected before publication:
- In some OSes, as indicated in the doc, the interface name basically includes
the MAC address of the interface. Because of this, if used as zone identifier,
it would basically disclose the MAC address. I think some additional security
considerations could be added on the impact that this might have.
Yes, that seems reasonable. Personally I would recommend o/s developers to use
a different method for naming zones, but that is perhaps a bit out of scope here.
We can simply note that it's bad practice.
The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:
- In section 1, I think the part "Two months later" can be removed.
I agree that "two months" is irrelevant but we did in theory have the chance to
pick a better symbol than "%" in RFC4007, if we had been wide awake.
- While a reader of this document is probably familiar with what percent
encoding is (RFC 3986), given that the document is quite verbose in explaining
the stuff, it might be good to provide some short context about what percent
encoding is.
I suggest making a specific reference to section 2.1 of RFC 3986, where it
is explained in a few sentences.
- RFCs are cited many times in the document (nothing wrong about it, of
course). Sometimes it is done by actually using a cross-reference to the RFC,
while others it is not. I'd understand that only the first time the cross-ref
is used, and then note, but the document does not seem to follow any pattern.
I'd suggest revising this (probably the RFC Editor would do anyway).
Yes, I see that. When an RFC is mentioned repeatedly in a section, it's
probably enough to put the formal reference once.
- "normalised" --> "normalized"
Quite a lot of transatlantic debate about that ;-) .
Thanks for the review,
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
